The Naturalist Paradox

The view we have of religious fervor is very skewed by our own Western/Rationalist world view, since we tend to define "religion" in such a way that we can still see ourselves as rationalists unencumbered by such muddy concepts as "faith" and "free will" and "God." But we deceive ourselves.

Even the most ardent naturalist has basic assumptions that rest on faith and faith alone. For example, the naturalist believes in a concept called "randomness;" a belief that cannot be proven.

By definition, anything that can't be reliably replicated or predicted (at least with regards to specific events, such as a single flip of the coin) is called "random." The theist might equally claim that there is no such thing as random; that each result springs from the actions of a deity. The naturalist thinks such ideas are ridiculous, but thinking they're ridiculous requires the initial unproven assumption that they are wrong.

A functionalist explanation of how religion works within a society--for example; belief in the sweet-by-and-by helps keep the downtrodden from rebelling and upsetting the apple cart--doesn't in any way allow us to determine the truth or falsehood of the belief itself. After all, if there is a God, wouldn't a religion based on his/her/its teachings have to function within the society in which it occurs? On the other hand, if the religion is false, it won't survive for long if it doesn't give some functional payoff. Either way, the religion is functional.

Don't believe in the supernatural? Isn't that a faith-based belief? Is it even possible to prove such a thing? "Super-natural" means "above" or "outside" nature--that is, it is not a part of the natural cause-effect world in which we and all our sensory inputs exist--and therefore it is beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. Science can't say "yea" or "nay" because the supernatural is, by definition, beyond our means of natural observation.

If Bronislaw Malinowski was right when "He posited that what [people]believe is a reflection of their psychological needs.", then what does the rationalist's faith in the non-existence of the supernatural say about their psychological needs?

Ultimately, the naturalists CAN'T be right. If they are, then their beliefs are meaningless and further discussion is meaningless as well. Their beliefs are the result of the random motions of atoms. The Trobriand Islander's (that Bronislaw Malinowski studied) beliefs also--according to the rationalist--are the result of the same random motions. There is, therefore, no way for the naturalist to say what is good, bad, right, wrong, better, worse, superior, inferior, worthy of discussion, worthy of anything. They are a product of their world and a slave to its forces every bit as much as is a rock. The logical syllogism might read...

IF there is nothing beyond nature,
THEN all things are the result of ultimately random physical forces,
SO logical thinking is the result of random physical forces,
THEREFORE this syllogism is without meaning.

It's a version of Epimenide's Paradox.